More on this

WASHINGTON — The White House and Republicans kept up the unrelenting mudslinging Sunday over who's to blame for roundly condemned budget cuts set to take effect at week's end, with the administration detailing the potential fallout in each state and governors worrying about the mess.

But as leaders rushed past each other to decry the potentially devastating and seemingly inevitable cuts, they also criticized their counterparts for their roles in introducing, implementing and obstructing the $85 billion budget mechanism that could affect everything from commercial flights to classrooms to meat inspections. The GOP's leading line of criticism hinged on blaming Obama's aides for introducing the budget trigger in the first place, while the administration's allies were determined to illustrate the consequences of the cuts as the product of Republican stubbornness.

Former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour, aware the political outcome may be predicated on who is to blame, half-jokingly said Sunday: "Well, if it was a bad idea, it was the president's idea."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said there was little hope to dodge the cuts "unless the Republicans are willing to compromise and do a balanced approach."

No so fast, Republicans interjected.

"I think the American people are tired of the blame game," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.

Yet just a moment before, she was blaming Obama for putting the country on the brink of massive spending cuts that were initially designed to be so unacceptable that Congress would strike a grand bargain to avoid them.

Obama nodded to the squabble during his weekly radio and Internet address.

"Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising — instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans — they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class," Obama said on Saturday, in his last weekly address before the deadline but unlikely to be his final word on the subject.

"We just need Republicans in Washington to come around," Obama added. "Because we need their help to finish the job of reducing our deficit in a smart way that doesn't hurt our economy or our people."

With Friday's deadline nearing, few in the nation's capital were optimistic that a realistic alternative could be found and all sought to cast the political process itself as the culprit. If Congress does not step in, a top-to-bottom series of cuts will be spread across domestic and defense agencies in a way that would fundamentally change how government serves its people.

Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that the GOP is "so focused on not giving the president another win" that they will cost thousands of jobs. To back up their point, the White House released state-by-state tallies for how many dollars and jobs the budget cuts would mean to each state.

"The Republicans are making a policy choice that these cuts are better than eliminating loopholes," Pfeiffer said.

And, yes, those cuts will hurt. The cuts would slash from domestic and defense spending alike, leading to furloughs for hundreds of thousands of government workers and contractors.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the cuts would harm the readiness of U.S. fighting forces. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said travelers could see delayed flights. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said 70,000 fewer children from low-income families would have access to Head Start programs. And furloughed meat inspectors could leave plants idled.

Sequester will affect North Carolina

In North Carolina, for instance, 22,000 Defense Department civilian employees could be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $117.5 million this year alone, the White House says. Army base funding would be cut by $16 million, while funding for Air Force operations would be cut by $5 million.

Also, according to the White House, North Carolina would see additional cuts, including:

Approximately $25.4 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting approximately 350 teacher and aide jobs at risk. About 38,000 fewer students would be served, and approximately 80 fewer schools would receive funding.

Approximately $16.8 million in funding, affecting 200 teachers, aides and staff, for education for children with disabilities.

Funding for Head Start and Early Head Start services that would affect approximately 1,500 children.

About $3.6 million in environmental funding for clean water and air quality and possibly another $1.27 million in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

About $401,000 in federal grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts and crime prevention and education.

About $83,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral and placement.

White House officials pointed to Ohio as another state that would be hit hard: $25.1 million in education spending and another $22 million for students with disabilities. Some 2,500 children from low-income families would also be removed from Head Start programs.

Officials also said their analysis showed Kentucky would lose $93,000 in federal funding for a domestic abuse program, meaning 400 fewer victims being served in Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's home state. Georgia, meanwhile, would face a $286,000 budget cut to its children's health programs, meaning almost 4,200 fewer children would receive vaccinations against measles and whooping cough.

White House officials said Nevada would face military furloughs totaling $12.1 million in reduced pay, a $424,000 cut to pay for meals for seniors and an almost $2 million reduction for clean air and water programs.

The White House compiled the numbers from federal agencies and its own budget office. The numbers are based only on the $85 billion in cuts for this fiscal year, from March to September, that are set to take effect Friday.

As to whether states could move money around to cover shortfalls, the White House said that depends on state budget structures and the specific programs. The White House did not have a list of which states or programs might have flexibility.

Some governors said the impasse was just the latest crisis in Washington that is keeping businesses from hiring and undermining the ability of state leaders to develop their own spending plans.

"It's senseless and it doesn't need to happen," said Gov. Martin O'Malley, D-Md., during the annual meeting of the National Governors Association this weekend.

"And it's a damn shame, because we've actually had the fastest rate of jobs recovery of any state in our region. And this really threatens to hurt a lot of families in our state and kind of flat line our job growth for the next several months," O'Malley said.

The budget cuts were all but certain to come up when Obama dines with the governors Sunday evening at the White House. But time is running out and hope is waning.

Suggestions intended to instill a spirit of compromise included bringing all sides to the bargaining table, where they could act like "adults," a presidential summit at Camp David and even a field trip to watch "Lincoln." Yet none of those options was on the books.

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy said it is past time for both sides to sit down to help dodge cuts that will hurt all states' budgets.

"Come to the table, everyone. Everybody. Let's work this thing out. Let's be adults," said Malloy, a Democrat.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called those defense cuts "unconscionable" and urged Obama to call lawmakers to the White House or the presidential retreat of Camp David for a last-minute budget summit.

"I won't put all the blame all on the president of the United States. But the president leads. The president should be calling us over somewhere — Camp David, the White House, somewhere — and us sitting down and trying to avert these cuts," McCain said.

LaHood, who served as a Republican representing Illinois in the U.S. House, urged his colleagues to watch Steven Spielberg's film about President Abraham Lincoln's political skills.

"Everybody around here ought to go take a look at the 'Lincoln' movie, where they did very hard things by working together, talking together and compromising," said LaHood. "That's what's needed here."

LaHood and Duncan were the only representatives from the administration to appear on Sunday shows. The White House did not book any of its senior aides.

Barbour, Malloy and McCain appeared on CNN's "State of the Union." McCaskill was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday." Ayotte and Duncan spoke with CBS' "Face the Nation." LaHood appeared on both CNN and NBC.

Copyright 2013 by WRAL.com and the Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

shaun2xlifeFeb 26, 2013

If Republicans care so much about cutting government why not own it, be proud of the things you advocate. Don't run and hide and point the finger at others. That sign alone is telling you they are playing their base like instruments. You really believe the party of 2 unfunded wars, unfunded tax break, medicare part D, TSA, Haliburton welfare, led thousands to be slaughtered in Iraq ( some great friends of mine lost their lives as well) and homeland security wants to cut waste. This would be funny if it wasn't reality. That's why most voters don't believe in the conservative agenda, because we tried it for 8 years and it failed horribly & miserably.

shaun2xlifeFeb 26, 2013

Who cares......everyone blames Obama because he is our problem.....he is hurting America with is communist agenda. Thank goodness we have a few republicans to keep a check on his agenda. lessismore

Statements like this is why no one takes the Republican party serious, if actual middle of the road voters step up and stop this crazy talk then maybe we can get some things done. Have the people on this message board seen the Republican approval ratings, Obama's is at a 4 yr high but you think he will be hurt by this. Republicans if you really care about your party take it back from the nut jobs, run on your morals not crazy talk dribble.

lessismoreFeb 26, 2013

This is all a joke. Nothing will happen, except the democrats and Obama will look like clowns. That's why they are trying so hard to prevent the sequester, because it will show that they are nothing but hate mongers who use fear tactics to get what they want.

pipcoltFeb 26, 2013

Let the ax fall. It's time to cut the head off this goverment mess and learn to work with less.

Pirate01Feb 26, 2013

There are no cuts. This years budget will be higher than last years. Next years budget will be higher than this years. But this does show everyone how controlling the federal government is in your life when EVERYTHING will supposedly be impacted by fake budget cuts.

Rebelyell55Feb 26, 2013

This what folks get for supporting either one of these parties. The middle class will get a serious hit this year, and most likely push us to a recession. But on a good note, the "gap" will be much wider when it's all over.

SaltyOldJarheadFeb 26, 2013

I totally support these budget cuts. I hope the Dems and Pubs do nothing.

A whole lot of folks have had to make some really hard adjustments to their lifestyle over the past 3 years. It's high time the government did it too.

And they'll never do cuts this drastic on their own.....

junkmail5Feb 26, 2013

Nor has he done anything to "control" or "scale back" such programs.DoingMyBes

Sure.

but then neither has virtually any other president in recent years.

Indeed, as mentioned, Bush expanded quite a few of them as much or more than Obama has.

there's plenty of LEGIT things to be upset with Obama over, or blame him for. Let's not start making stuff up, huh?

DoingMyBestFeb 26, 2013

"Obama himself has done relatively little to "expand" such programsjunkmail5"

Nor has he done anything to "control" or "scale back" such programs.

junkmail5Feb 26, 2013

Ripcord....I have read it, and I understand what Obama is doing. That is why Obama!s first steps were to nationalize health care, and expand the entitlement and welfare base- lessismore

he didn't actually do any of that of course.

As always the most reliable way to know the truth is reverse whatever lessismore claims it is.

Obamacare, while a terrible law, isn't even remotely "nationalized healthcare"... which would be significantly better, and cheaper, than what Obamacare is.

And again- food stamp enrollment began to boom in 2001... because eligibility was greatly expanded THEN. Years before Obama was even elected. Ditto most of the other programs you're talking about.